I'm not understanding the Truman reference. Reminding that hindsight is 20/20, he handled Korea as well as anyone could. Can you explain how he didn't act as CiC during Korea?

The Chinese regular forces attacked our forces and inflicted heavy casualties. That was an act of war. MacArthur wanted to take down the Chinese (with nukes if necessary), basically arguing fight them now or fight them later. Truman took down MacArthur instead

The Chinese regular forces attacked our forces and inflicted heavy casualties. That was an act of war. MacArthur wanted to take down the Chinese (with nukes if necessary), basically arguing fight them now or fight them later. Truman took down MacArthur instead

20/20 hindsight say MacArthur had the right of it

Well, to be sure, you'd have to get the Americans interested in fighting the Chinese.
Not just call up some reserves. It would be another effort like WWII.
And most of the world was bone tired of war.

"Una salus victis nullam sperare salutem."

"A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs." Benson Everett Legg - Woolard v. Sheridan

I am not so sure. When you take the human wave strategy combined with the fact we had just introduced napalm to combat, it seems that we could have ramped up production and had one hell of a barbecue.

Tactics (and weapons) evolve.
Just ask the Germans how their invasion of Russia worked out in the end.

"Una salus victis nullam sperare salutem."

"A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs." Benson Everett Legg - Woolard v. Sheridan

Tactics (and weapons) evolve.
Just ask the Germans how their invasion of Russia worked out in the end.

It was pure arrogance on their part to go toe to toe with the Russian winter. They should have known better. If it were necessary (and it was, given that Stalin was waiting for what he considered optimal timing to do the same) to act immediately, they should have pushed the Russians out of Poland, old Prussia, and firebombed the crops in Mother Russia such as to engage in scorched earth in reverse rather than going all in just in time to get their asses froze and allow the Russkies to regroup and clobber them.

Government and pedophiles both practice buggering those powerless to defend themselves.

Supposedly South Korea is not worried. I suspect a lot of this is the media building up an issue. Like washpo telling everyone Nk now has 60 mini nukes! something that happened 3 years ago with Obama but wasn't reported. Eye roll.

the media is trying to facilitate a coup and start a nuclear war. WTF is wrong with them?

Originally Posted by Dddrees

So then with all the intelligence in the world WTF is wrong with Trump?

Coup d'etat:
The idea someone is trying to facilitate a "coup" . . . presuming this is a coup d'etat of President Trump . . . is so far fetched it's well beyond remotely conceivable. I'm also presuming this is about some of the "XXV Amendment" crap I've seen recently, authored by those clueless about what that process is. Read Section 4 of the amendment completely: who must write the declaration of incapacitation and who must concur with it before it can be transmitted to the Senate Pres. Pro Tem. and the House Speaker, and then what the process is after that. Not going to happen unless a sitting president is truly incapacitated, physically or mentally. Too many folks in D.C. are exceptionally averse to anything short of that, on both sides of the aisle. Only one man can initiate a XXV, Section 4 POTUS removal for incapacitation and it's not anyone in Congress. Their only recourse is impeachment articles by the House followed by trial and conviction in the Senate. Clinton was impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate. I knew that's how it would go down when it started. Recommended viewing: "Seven Days in May", an interesting film from the mid-1960's (based on the 1962 novel of same name).

Nuclear War on Korean Peninsula:
Breaking the truce and resuming the war on the Korean Peninsula, nuclear or conventional, requires a sufficient casus belli (cause for war) to justify it. Not just in US eyes, but in the eyes of the international community, especially ROK and Japan and possibly Taiwan. PRC remaining neutral or ambivalent would be crucial. We clearly had casus belli for Desert Storm, and most assuredly for Enduring Freedom. We don't have sufficient casus belli for Kimmie-Boy and his DPRK. If he heaves one or more missiles in the direction of Guam, that changes it. Instantly. Even if they're not armed. US reaction and/or retaliation using military becomes significantly more justifiable, but it's still not a done deal unless they actually attempt to hit Guam with one (armed or not). One must consider the cost of resuming the war on the peninsula to the U.S. and ROK, not just in dollars, but the human cost, particularly in the ROK. Then there's the cost in the aftermath. What do you do with the DPRK afterward? Is the general civilian population living there culpable for Kimmie-Boy? I don't think so. The DPRK is already a humanitarian disaster and would be even worse after a war annihilates the DPRK government and military capability. I do not see the US pitching a nuclear warhead over the DMZ at the DPRK unless Kimmie-Boy goes off the rails and heaves one at ROK, and even then it's not a sure thing. What long-term political objective does using a nuke anywhere on the DPRK achieve that cannot be achieved, undoubtedly better, with conventional weapons?

Those in fear of nuclear war need to understand better how the NSC (National Security Council) operates in a crisis. It first determines what the desired end state is. What do you want the political, social and economic landscape to look like long-term globally when the dust settles? They then evaluate what all the political options are, with and without the use of military force, to achieve that end state without incurring unintended consequences. Reaction and retaliation under some circumstances and conditions would be immediate, such as a retaliatory strategic nuclear strike against the USSR if they had launched a first strike on the US. That never arose, but the NSC would be working to determine what to do after that. Other circumstances, such as the Twin Towers and Pentagon attack, had significant deliberation about how best to deal with Osama bin Laden, Al Quaeda, and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Same occurred with Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait.

If Trump or any POTUS wants to heave a nuke at a country, there's nothing to legally stop him. Period. One tiny loophole exists with very quickly invoking a XXV Amendment declaration of incapacitation. Impeachment and conviction could never happen fast enough. Anyone who thinks the president needs SECDEF concurrence, refusal of which can veto the president's decision, is totally clueless about how the National Command Authority (NCA) works. It's not a concurrence, it's an authentication, and that's all it is. Even if the sitting SECDEF did refuse, that stops nothing. The SECDEF serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. The President simply fires him, and likely has him arrested. Refusing to authenticate a nuke release order from the actual president is not a legal option for the SECDEF. The line of SECDEF succession begins. It's well over sixty deep; stopped counting at that point and was nowhere near the end when I got curious once about SECDEF succession.

I've little doubt if a nuke is used on or around the Korean Peninsula, including Japan or Guam, it will be one of Kimmie-Boy's, and the US would most likely not retaliate in kind. The retaliation, however, would be very swift with the fire and fury nobody has ever seen before. Doing so maintains the moral high ground internationally and avoids contaminating the region even more with nuclear fallout which knows no borders, not just the DPRK. I'm quite confident anything Kimmie-Boy launches would never reach its target although there's a tiny probability it might get past the ABM defenses. US capability over 25 years ago in Desert Shield and Desert Storm knocking down Saddam's Scuds was exceptional, and the Patriot system was never designed for taking out the relatively short range Scud.

The Chinese regular forces attacked our forces and inflicted heavy casualties. That was an act of war. MacArthur wanted to take down the Chinese (with nukes if necessary), basically arguing fight them now or fight them later. Truman took down MacArthur instead

20/20 hindsight say MacArthur had the right of it

You don't understand why Truman fired MacArthur. It wasn't about a conflict in policy, it was about MacArthur repeatedly sending out public communiques to the press and others regarding Korean political policy after Truman had expressly forbid doing so without his review beforehand. MacArthur was attempting to do an "end around" of Truman, the POTUS and Commander in Chief, regarding the political objective for the war, and he was publicly critical of the POTUS. That is a crime. No if's, and's or but's. It's a crime, a felonious, go straight to prison crime. I invite you to read Article 88 of the UCMJ (Google is your friend; I'm not going to quote it here).

Commissioned officers in the US Armed Forces do not have unbridled First Amendment rights and there are limits on when, where and how they can engage in politics, including political campaigns, especially publicly. Article 88 has been tested on a number of occasions and none have never prevailed. MacArthur is just one of many flag officers who have run their careers aground on this. They're typically invited to immediately retire after being relived of command or current duties. Lesser than flag ranks find themselves facing courts-martial charges with a swift ferocity. The process typically can be negotiated into a qualified resignation for the good of the service, without retirement if they were retirement eligible. MacArthur had well-known ambitions on eventually running for president. He let the cart get before the horse and didn't retire before engaging in political commentary interfering with President Truman's foreign policy objectives. That violates the fundamental and sacrosanct principle of civilian control of the US Armed Forces. There is a very, very bright line regarding that.